Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Southern California Distribution Issue 02 Part 04
-Graphics Standards
The Following is a quote from The Byter:
"I feel that VGA is a good low-end standard. The text is quite clean, graphics
are of decent resolution, and the cost is low enough to be quite affordable.
SVGA, which is not an IBM standard, and has trouble getting the VESA standards
to be implemented everywhere, is in trouble. The high-resolution of SVGA and
extended color pallettes (640x480x256, 800x600x256, 800x600x16, 1024x768x16,
etc.) can be nice, but the lack of standards make them difficult to support.
800x600x16 is quite effective for productivity, but the high-color modes (256
colors) are pretty useless for anything but still pictures, as the speed is too
slow to be productive. the 1024x768 modes are also not useful, as text is too
small on a 14" monitor, and interlacing on inexpensive monitors makes it bound
to provide copious headaches to users.
8514/a is cool. An onboard graphics coprocessor is a must for doing
high-resolution, high-color video displays. Some new accellerated 8514/a cards
based on the TI processor are even more appealing. Using programs with these
cards is a joy, but the expense still puts it out of reach for most home users.
XGA, the newly released IBM standard, looks good, but I really don't know
enoguh about it to say anything concrete. I have heard that it offers high
8514/a-type and above resolutions, and in many more colors, which should put it
in a nice position to clean up on color photo retouching, which has hereforto
been limited on the PC because of no official graphics standards - each card
had to have its own software (ie: Targa Imaging System needed a special version
of TimeArts' Lumena software to use it... the Hercules Graphics Station also
has a version, but there are no standards). I have heard conflicting reports
that it does or does not have a graphics coprocessor. If it does - it'll be
cool. If it does not, it'll be useless.
I beleive the next big boom will be in 8514/a cards. They are compatible with
current monitors, and most of them have a passthrough for VGA (so you can hook
up a VGA card and an 8514/a card in the same machine, to give you all
resolutions). Some actually incorporate VGA into the card, and some companies
actually make a dual SVGA/8514/a card (Trident, ATI, Paradise). With more
competition and mass production, prices will fall to within reasonable ranges.
XGA, on the other hand, will probably be a bit further off, unless it catches
on big. If it does catch on and clone makers begin manufacturing XGA boards en
masse, most users will probably leapfrog over 8514/a in favor of the new
standard, much like most people went from EGA to VGA (skipping PGA)."
-The Byter
Graphics standards has long been a steady evolution until recently.
After resolution of 640 by 480 at 16 colors out of 262144, there are virtually
no standards at all. Some diehards may say that TIGA is going to dominate,
but that is doubtful. 8514/A may succeed, if VESA would pass the new
Interlaced 8514/A Standard faster. The only problem now, is that not every
vendor agrees on a single standard. Take SuperVGA cards for example, the
disorganized vendors developed anything they can think of. The result is
major incompatibilities among the cards. We'll start from the rock bottom,
VGA. VGA cards are not uncommon nowadays, when they only cost 79.99 for a
standard no-frills VGA card, and some are fairly fast too. SuperVGA is
basically VGA with nicer resolutions and significantly faster. Among all the
SVGA boards, Orichid ProDesigner II is the fastest, although its driver still
has bugs. Personally, I prefer Paradise and ATI boards, as they offer fairly
fast speed and very good quality, especially with ATI, where they provide both
analog and digital display connectors. In the 1024 by 728 world, the only
major competing standards are 8514/A and TIGA, and possibly XGA in the future.
Some say that TIGA is the future, but it is not quite as easy as they may
think. Although TIGA is technically superior to 8514/A, it does not have any
software support other than device drivers, which is still very lacking.
Some hopeless people also spread around rumors that Origin is going to support
TIGA, when it is not practical at this time to support resolutions above
320x200x256 since the CD-ROM market, or any other mass media distribution
market has not developed completely yet. To clearify things, a 640x480x256
color image would take more than four times a normal 256MCGA would take.
8514/A, on the other hand, has perfectly been accepted as a partial-standard.
Although its interlacing is hard on the eyes, it reduces the cost of the board,
but the price is still high. There seems to be an endless war of graphical
standards, between TIGA and 8514/A...
XGA
Many rumors has been going around about XGA. Some are true, some we
would not know until XGA is released officially. XGA WILL support 8514/A, at
software compatibility level, but it will not be fully register compatible.
It is going to directly compete in the high-end field, and IBM announced that
it is going to be used in IBM workstations and high end PS/2 systems. IBM,
however, probably will make their own XGA board for their MCA line.
XGA is possibly similar in architechure to the interface used in IBM RISC/6000,
and rumors has been going around that it has 16bit or 24bit graphics.
If the rumors are true, then we are in for big business, if XGA succeeded,
IBM 386/486 systems will knock out Commodore's Amiga line, since with a
combination of XGA, 486/33+, MT-32, and SCSI, the system is virtually endless
in power for graphics and music, which is Amiga's only strong point, but we
will stay on the subject on XGA. If XGA succeeds, all there is to wait is the
maturity of the CD-ROM/Optical Devices market. Once these are completed,
developers will be able to come up with 1024x728 graphics for games, without
having to worry too much about space unless they put too much DigitizedFX.
XGA may also directly compete with TARGA, if it is a 24bit graphics board.
In the end, IBM will continue to prosper, and possibly knock out
even more competition. Another note, who says Japan makes all the stuff?
It's AMERICANS that design chips, only that the Japanese are more efficient in
managing business, and the companies make everything in Japan(Another reason:
Labor there is lots cheaper than in USA).
Thanks to The Byter for providing his opinions.
-Atz
